Amazing...what's the first thing McCain does as soon as he wins the Repub nomination? He goes to the White House to kiss the feet of Bush and get his endorsement.

He flip-flops on the Bush tax cuts. He flip-flops on Bush's Social Security plan. He flip-flops on Roe vs. Wade. He flip-flops on campaign finance reform. Flip-flops on border security.

How can anyone think that voting for McCain isn't voting for the failed policies of the last 8 years?

He can't. That's why he's going to be easily defeated in the general election- a vote against McCain is a vote against Bush, plain and simple.

This is exactly why the Republican party is losing election after election. They have felt that somehow an indicator of success is how much the American people disagree with what they are doing, so the harder they fail, the tighter they cling to their failed policies. It's a pretty sharp contrast to the "reality based community" (their term), where failure is actually a negative feedback.

McCain grabbed the nomination for two reasons. First, because he was the candidate the Republican party hated least, and second because the press loves him. The latter is why his serial flip-flopping isn't really a big issue in the political reporting.

Another story being overlooked is McCain's violation of campaign finance laws. Including, ironically enough, the law he co-wrote, McCain-Feingold. He was put on the ballot in a few states because he claimed he would be federally funded... and now he isn't. He was also shy votes to get on the ballot in another state, which was simply ignored. But seeing how the law states the president and vice president cannot be residents of the same state, which was ignored for Bush/Cheney, the fact that McCain is riding in to the nomination on illegality just gives him "street cred", it seems.

I think of all the Republicans in the field Rudy and McCain had the best chance to win in November. Especially against Hillary Clinton. In many ways a vote for McCain would be a vote to continue George W Bush's policies. No doubt about that. But I certainly think McCain has a very good chance to beat Hillary if she gets the nomination. It will come down to voter turnout like it always does. I have a strong suspicion that many Republicans in Ohio voted for Hillary last night. They want no part of Obama in November. I guarantee you that Howard Dean was hoping for an Obama sweep last night. There is virtually no possible way for Obama not to be ahead in elected delegates at the convention. But it appears that the Clinton campaign is going to try to push for Fl and Mich to be counted and steal the nomination anyway. If it appears that Obama got cheated out of the nomination in Denver, many of his supporters won't vote for McCain in protest. But many of them also will not turn out for Hillary either. This could allow McCain to win.

I have been saying for months that Hillary Clinton is the one candidate on either side who will bring the Republican base out to vote.

If Hillary wins, which I don't think is possible at this point, she would almost certainly have to choose Obama as her running mate. I don't think there's any way around that... and who knows? Maybe that's the situation she envisions.

As for the Florida and Michigan thing... I can't really agree with their primaries not counting. I think the DNC should have worked out some other way to penalize the parties in those states rather than disenfranchising the voters of those states. Disenfranchisement is the forte' of Republicans- I say leave that kind of behavior to them, since it's gotten them where they are today.

Another aspect is the same matter with the late primaries- the Democrats in these states are really charged up. So by not even campaigning in Florida and Michigan, any kind of momentum or excitement was just sacrificed. Sure, you can make it up during the general election, but momentum and excitement take time to build, and besides, why leave things to chance?

About the only reason I wish this was over is because I feel Hillary is going to continue following the advice of campaign advisers who are tied to the worst of the GOP. It's no surprise these guys keep urging her to go negative, since they know very well all it does is both weaken the Democrats and strengthen the Republicans. If the Democrats run as Democrats, they win easily. If they try running like Republicans, with lies, fear, and smear, they will probably lose. The problem was never the message, the problem was always caving in to conservatives (which just lends a very undeserved credibility to their policies), and not standing up for liberal values.

I used to want Hillary to win, but I'm not liking the people she is taking advice from. Since a win for her would put those guys in power, I'm now pretty opposed to her winning. I'm not agreeing with every criticism leveled at her (like the continued cries of "OMG she is being racist for saying Obama is black!!", which somehow implies Obama has to "hide" from it, and thus sounds even more racist than their accusation), but a lot of criticisms lobbed at her are pretty valid. At this stage, it seems more like she doesn't care whether a win for her damages the party or not.

I had more respect for the McCain of 2000. But politicians of all parties do certain things to get elected, and then we generally hold our breathes to see whether they're still going to "kiss up" once they're in office, or if they have a different mindset once the election's over (i.e., they get a backbone). So you could argue some voters hope the McCain of 2008 who treats Bush like a king now (but couldn't practically utter Bush's name in 2000 without disgust) will suddenly revert to the 2000 version if he becomes president.

I haven't made up my mind if it's best to have a president with military/battle experience. You could argue such a person would be less likely to send troops to battle (and possible death) without fully considering the consequences, and could better communicate with the military. You could also argue such a person might be more likely to think he/she could crack an overseas situation with military force better than with diplomacy. History's full of both (generals who were horrible presidents; presidents with no military background who were terrific military commanders-in-chief).

So when McCain thinks he's obviously the only "patriotic" choice because he was in the military, and the only one who can keep the nation secure, I don't buy it. It's not that simple. He should read a few military history books.

I was really rather sad to read in my area paper (Wash. Post) today that Obama's advisers are saying he should start doing "sharper political attacks" on Clinton and McCain. Which really only means that eventually the race will become just as negative and focused on "my opponent is an unpatriotic bastige who doesn't care about you at all" with the idea that you should vote for someone because you "fear" the other choice. This is the tact almost all the local politicians in my area take now (northern Va.). You get constant mailers accusing a candidate of 25 things, and you can't even tell it's from his/her opponent unless you read the fine print at the end.

And people wonder why so many people don't bother to vote anymore? (I always do even if all the candidates make me hold my nose at the voting machines ). Who wants to vote for people who think that way? (regardless of party platform).

Hey, it's never too late to start pushing my idea of a Randomocracy, where your nation's leader is chosen in a lottery every six years. I still think random chance would give us better results than the "establishment".

But then again, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Our country is supposedly based on the sanctity of the vote... and we've been very poor protectors of voting rights. So the lottery would probably just end up being rigged anyway. So the concept is good, and the execution would likely fail. Blah.

BTW, if you check McCain's voting record, even the "MAVERICK!!!111!!" of 2000 still voted with Bush/Cheney almost literally every time. He was just being a passive-aggressive baby about it. Once upon a time I respected McCain... but the more you look into the guy, the less there is to like.

Hey, it's never too late to start pushing my idea of a Randomocracy, where your nation's leader is chosen in a lottery every six years. I still think random chance would give us better results than the "establishment".

I was really rather sad to read in my area paper (Wash. Post) today that Obama's advisers are saying he should start doing "sharper political attacks" on Clinton and McCain. Which really only means that eventually the race will become just as negative and focused on "my opponent is an unpatriotic bastige who doesn't care about you at all" with the idea that you should vote for someone because you "fear" the other choice. This is the tact almost all the local politicians in my area take now (northern Va.). You get constant mailers accusing a candidate of 25 things, and you can't even tell it's from his/her opponent unless you read the fine print at the end.

I'll be kind of disapointed if Obama goes negative. I think if he stays his course he will eventually win the nomination and still keep the moral high ground. I'd like to think someone can still win the Presidency by not using negative attacks. Honestly Obama and Hillary are so close policy wise I think it's Obama's integrety and dignity many people including myself view as his strength over Hillary. I'd hate to see him lose that.

I don't think he necessarily has to go negative, all he has to do is continue to throw his opponent's records in their faces.

There's no doubt that Iraq is the biggest foreign policy disaster in US history. So fair or not, he can just keep saying he didn't vote for it (which, as I've mentioned before, he didn't vote against anything either).

Also, it's completely fair to state that all of Bush's policies ARE McCain's policies. McCain has even flopped back to supporting Social Security "reform" in the form of dumping all the SS money onto the stock market (stated as "personal accounts"). Which, if anyone's been watching the stock market, would have been a huge disaster had it passed when the Republicans wanted it to.

So he doesn't really have to go "negative" in the manner of unsubstantial attacks. But he can drive home the fact that McCain's record demonstrates what a poor candidate he actually is. Yes, it's a negative message (since he wouldn't just be saying why he himself is a great candidate), but it's a message McCain's career has created. Which, IMO, makes it a perfectly legitimate negative message.

I don't think he necessarily has to go negative, all he has to do is continue to throw his opponent's records in their faces.

There's no doubt that Iraq is the biggest foreign policy disaster in US history. So fair or not, he can just keep saying he didn't vote for it (which, as I've mentioned before, he didn't vote against anything either).

Also, it's completely fair to state that all of Bush's policies ARE McCain's policies. McCain has even flopped back to supporting Social Security "reform" in the form of dumping all the SS money onto the stock market (stated as "personal accounts"). Which, if anyone's been watching the stock market, would have been a huge disaster had it passed when the Republicans wanted it to.

So he doesn't really have to go "negative" in the manner of unsubstantial attacks. But he can drive home the fact that McCain's record demonstrates what a poor candidate he actually is. Yes, it's a negative message (since he wouldn't just be saying why he himself is a great candidate), but it's a message McCain's career has created. Which, IMO, makes it a perfectly legitimate negative message.

I would have to say that vietnam dwarfs Iraq still as the biggest foreign policy disaster in us history in every way possible, nuimber of lives lost, years spent, ect. Iraq is nowhere close to that yet.

Yes McCain is a lot like bush in many ways, so of course he isnt worth voting for, but not being worth voting for is a trait that all three major candidates in the election share.

Hey, it's never too late to start pushing my idea of a Randomocracy, where your nation's leader is chosen in a lottery every six years. I still think random chance would give us better results than the "establishment".

ive always liked this idea as well. in the ancient world, this practice wasnt called randomocracy, it was called democracy

I would have to say that vietnam dwarfs Iraq still as the biggest foreign policy disaster in us history in every way possible, nuimber of lives lost, years spent, ect. Iraq is nowhere close to that yet.

Hey, it's never too late to start pushing my idea of a Randomocracy, where your nation's leader is chosen in a lottery every six years. I still think random chance would give us better results than the "establishment".

ive always liked this idea as well. in the ancient world, this practice wasnt called randomocracy, it was called democracy

Well, to a certain extent, since when things are based on voters you can't really be certain of what you will get. But ultimately, democracy is just a really big popularity contest. The randomocracy (for lack of a better term- can anyone "Latinize" that?) is more like playing lotto.

Perhaps better reform would be to have the voters be more invested in making policy decisions, and simply vote for who they think would best institute those policies.

Besides what good would he be? He's the last guy I would want to go and collect "intelligence"... I can't believe a word he says while he's spaced out on OUR planet; I don't see how he's going to be any more reliable on another one.

I guess it'd be easy from a morality point though; it wouldn't be considered a "loss" of human life. Plus, we could just tell him he's heading out to the biggest fishing trip ever! Wanna go, do ya boy? Huh? Huh? C'mon, Lets go!

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

Back in 2000, I would have voted for McCain. Now not so much. I think he has lost most of the ideas and the "Maverick" label that was appealing to independants. Plus, I think the guy is too old at this point. I would have had an easier time voting for Rudy. I liked his social issue positions. The rest of the Republican field was terrible. I think the best gift the Republicans could get would be for Hillary to win the nomination. If Obama wins, I think he can't lose unless something really crazy happens. As far as Obama goes, I disagree with a lot he says but I can't help being impressed with his campaign. He has campaigned for the most part in a positive manner and it is refreshing. I also think his election would really help heal some divisions between the USA and the rest of the world. If he picks a VP with any kind of foriegn policy experience, I'll have a tough time not voting for him.

If he picks a VP with any kind of foriegn policy experience, I'll have a tough time not voting for him.

Well we already know whoever he picks is just going to be another "Stay The Course!!" drone, so is the name on the suit really important at all? We've already seen what these kind of people bring about with all their "foreign policy experience"... which actually turns out to be worse than if we elected someone with no experience whatsoever.

IMO, the best way to go is to elect someone who simply says "see those guys over there? I'm going to do the exact opposite of everything they would do".

I just listened to some international diplomat on the BBC last night: everyone in the world knows Team BushCo hasn't had a single success in almost eight years, and they have absolutely zero credibility on anything they say. Everything they've attempted has gone completely counter to their stated aims. EVERYTHING, literally. While he didn't come out and say it, it's pretty obvious that everyone has no problem treating the Bushites as a joke (albeit a very bad one).